Can the U.S. government force religious organizations to provide coverage and/or payment for services and drugs that they are morally and religiously opposed to? Do Catholic charities, schools, universities, and hospitals fall under the same umbrella as the Catholic church itself? Is this in direct violation of the First Amendment? How does this fit into the Separation of Church and State? If Catholic organizations can be interfered with by goverment, does the church have the right to interfere with the government? This law would also overstep and override a provision in several states' laws that exempt religious organizations from such things.

WASHINGTON— The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops offers the following clarifications regarding the Health and Human Services regulations on mandatory coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

1.The mandate does not exempt Catholic charities, schools, universities, or hospitals. These institutions are vital to the mission of the Church, but HHS does not deem them "religious employers" worthy of conscience protection, because they do not "serve primarily persons who share the[ir] religious tenets."HHS denies these organizations religious freedom precisely because their purpose is to serve the common good of society—a purpose that government should encourage, not punish.

2.The mandate forces these institutions and others, against their conscience, to pay for things they consider immoral. Under the mandate, the government forces religious insurers to write policies that violate their beliefs;forces religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs; and forces religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs.

3.The mandate forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and devices as well as contraception. Though commonly called the "contraceptive mandate," HHS's mandate also forces employers to sponsor and subsidize coverage of sterilization.And by including all drugs approved by the FDA for use as contraceptives, the HHS mandate includes drugs that can induce abortion, such as "Ella," a close cousin of the abortion pill RU-486.

4.Catholics of all political persuasions are unified in their opposition to the mandate Catholics who have long supported this Administration and its healthcare policies have publicly criticized HHS's decision, including columnists E.J. Dionne. . . , Mark Shields. . . , and Michael Sean Winters. . . ; college presidents Father John Jenkins. . . and Arturo Chavez. . . ; and Daughter of Charity Sister Carol Keehan. . . , president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States. 5.Many other religious and secular people and groups have spoken out strongly against the mandate. Many recognize this as an assault on the broader principle of religious liberty, even if they disagree with the Church on the underlying moral question.For example, Protestant Christian. . . , Orthodox Christian. . . , and Orthodox Jewish. . . groups--none of which oppose contraception--have issued statements against the HHS's decision.The Washington Post. . . , USA Today. . . , N.Y. Daily News. . . , Detroit News. . . , and other secular outlets, columnists. . . , and bloggers. . . have editorialized against it.

6.The federal mandate is much stricter than existing state mandates. HHS chose the narrowest state-level religious exemption as the model for its own.That exemption was drafted by the ACLU and exists in only 3 states (New York, California, Oregon).Even without a religious exemption, religious employers can already avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 states by self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law.The HHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief.

Joined: 3/12/2011Posts: 568Location: somewhere on the coast, United States

I feel that the federal government is way overstepping their bounds on this one. Not only it is interfering with freedom of religion but the government is acting like a nazi dictatorship. I say keep the church out of the government and government out of the church.

Given the reality that not every employee, student, patient, customer of catholic organizations are actually catholic, should everyone be bound by catholic "rules"? I guess the conservative answer to this is "tough shit, get a different job", but I don't quite see how that's a reasonable position (but I feel like that a lot lately, so maybe it's me).

What about small to medium-sized cities all across the nation which have only one hospital which is catholic, or even if it's not, the "catholic" health plan won't cover what they need? If they need something that the church objects to, are they supposed to drive 90 miles elsewhere if they don't agree with the care that the church normally objects to providing?

In essence, isn't this simply a mainstreaming of benefits, so that no matter where a person works, they have access to the same procedures and medications in their benefits? Just because a hospital and/or health care plan offers a service doesn't mean a patient is obligated to take part in it. Nobody's forcing anyone to take contraceptives, or get an abortion. It seems to me that the "church" wants it both ways. They want special rules as an organization (which they already get) and special exemptions as an employer and service provider of people across the cultural spectrum (which I have a hard time seeing them deserving of). So, if a church has an objection to it, my advice is to browbeat it's believers into never taking part in those things (which of course they already do), but not to single out certain religious objections and make everyone under their paycheck, academic direction, etc. pay cash they likely don't have (and in secret, no doubt, lest they be "judged").

I feel that the federal government is way overstepping their bounds on this one. Not only it is interfering with freedom of religion but the government is acting like a nazi dictatorship. I say keep the church out of the government and government out of the church.

This sort of seems like the church is in the government, since prior to this mandate, the government has been complicit in limiting benefits based on "faith".

It's just a church, no matter how many members they have.

I would never expect my religious leaders to get influence on what mainstream insurance coverage offers to me and others. It's my job to live my life according to how I interpret truth. Society doesn't need to bend to meet the beliefs of religious organizations.

I am generally opposed to any and all government mandates. Though I am no fan of catholicism at all, I feel that the government is in the wrong on this. The trend of government interference and dominance over all aspects of our life is only growing. In reality we have no recourse against that.You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

Joined: 2/7/2011Posts: 177Location: between a rock and grad school applications, Unite

I was literally just talking about this on facebook! I think that the administration has got it RIGHT. 90% of those employed by Catholic hospitals and universities are not Catholics therefore they aren't bound by the Catholic faith to not use contraception. Furthermore, if these institutions cover vasectomies and Viagra (which most do) then, birth control should also be available and affordable. I think everyone should remember that using any form of contraception is a choice.

What I find funny is that in most polls about this, more than half of the Catholics polled said they were in favor of this. When polled among religious people (more than catholic and protestant), it showed that 60% where in favor of this.

I think that if they don't want to comply with providing healthcare as a healthcare institution especially while they receive some type of federal funding then they shouldn't be tax-exempt and loose that funding as well.

I think that if they don't want to comply with providing healthcare as a healthcare institution especially while they receive some type of federal funding then they shouldn't be tax-exempt and loose that funding as well.

The First Amendment of the Constitution says this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Part of the reason the first settlers came to the New World was because they didn't want to be forced to belong to the Church of England. They wanted their own churches, and to be free to worship in whatever way they deemed proper. This amendment says that the government is forbidden to recognize any official church, and is forbidden to legislate how churches practice their faiths. It says nothing about how churches provide public services.

Time and again, churches have been lobbying legislators for benefits. They get tax breaks on everything imaginable. They get a tax break for providing school books to students, for providing standardized tests... basically anything that is "a direct benefit to the children, and not their religious schools". linkmore linkage Since 2007, churches have been allowed to use public tax money "for improvements that serve a civic purpose, but not to promote religion, ruled Judge Avern Cohn of the US District Court of Eastern Michigan. In practical terms, that meant the churches could be reimbursed for repairs to their buildings and parking lots, which "convey no religious message," he said, but not for new signs or stained-glass windows." linky winky

The way I see it, if the churches are already taking tax money to fund their operations, then we taxpayers should have some say in how those tax dollars are spent. No, I'm not saying that we have the right to tell the churchgoers how to worship. But you can't have it both ways. You can't own a business that caters to a non-secular clientele, like a school or college, and take tax money to fund it, while not adhering to equal-rights laws. Want to have things your own way? Get out of my wallet.

Juicyme makes a good point about receiving government money. If these Catholic hospitals are receiving government money then they have to accept the fascist rules and dogma of the government or they can turn that money down. A simple choice, raise all the money on their own and do what they wish OR accept government money and adhere to those stipulations.

Maybe the Catholics wouldn't have a problem fund raising if they could get their priests to keep their hands out of little boys pants! I seriously doubt saying 40 "Hail Mary's and Full of Grace" is going to get their sins forgiven.

This sort of seems like the church is in the government, since prior to this mandate, the government has been complicit in limiting benefits based on "faith".

It's just a church, no matter how many members they have.

I would never expect my religious leaders to get influence on what mainstream insurance coverage offers to me and others. It's my job to live my life according to how I interpret truth. Society doesn't need to bend to meet the beliefs of religious organizations.

It is just a church but they should have the freedom to decide what things they do and what things they dont do on their own hospitals.

I heard about this whole thing recently and even though im completely pro-choice i do believe that you have tons of other places to go, that doesnt have to be a Catholic Hospital.

It would be the same as the goverment deciding that every single restaurant have to serve meat on their Menus, wouldnt you think that the Vegetarians Restaurants would object to it? its their choice weather they do or dont serve meat it shouldnt be the Goverment choice!!

It is just a church but they should have the freedom to decide what things they do and what things they dont do on their own hospitals.

I heard about this whole thing recently and even though im completely pro-choice i do believe that you have tons of other places to go, that doesnt have to be a Catholic Hospital.

It would be the same as the goverment deciding that every single restaurant have to serve meat on their Menus, wouldnt you think that the Vegetarians Restaurants would object to it? its their choice weather they do or dont serve meat it shouldnt be the Goverment choice!!

I think that's a fair point, as long as they lose every cent of funding from the government. If you provide public services, then your personal/organizational faith-based beliefs should not come into play.

I think that's a fair point, as long as they lose every cent of funding from the government. If you provide public services, then your personal/organizational faith-based beliefs should not come into play.

Very true they could choose not to receive fonds from the goverment and vice versa, but all though i dont live in the states i have gone to Catholic Hospitals there and also know plenty of people that have also and in my opinion they do a very good job.

So my point is whats better? have a place where you can find help in tons of ways except a few, or dont have that place at all?

We as a society are very easy to judge on the people or organizations that we dont believe in, and yes i do know all the wrong things that some people that some Catholics have done, but are we so blind to judge a whole community for mistakes that a few have made? im only asking this because, i wander if it was an Atheist Hospital and the Goverment decide that every day they have to have mass in their Hospitals and they say they wouldnt do it, if people here would be still saying "well if they are receiving fonds from the Goverment they have to do what they told them to do" (yes i know the US Goverment cant actually say that, but imagine if they could)

Just something i think we should all think about, are you oppose to them receiving fonds from the goverment because they dont want to do abortions or are you oppose to them receiving them because they are Catholics?

I'm simply referring to the idea that a religious organization can provide services to a broad range of people, most of which are outside of their faith, receive tax dollars to do so, and then cry foul when the government dares to ask them to provide benefits identical to those provided everywhere else which happen to fall outside of their particular faith rules.

If you provide public services, and receive public monies for doing so, you can't pick and choose what you want to provide and/or pay for.

I'm simply referring to the idea that a religious organization can provide services to a broad range of people, most of which are outside of their faith, receive tax dollars to do so, and then cry foul when the government dares to ask them to provide benefits identical to those provided everywhere else which happen to fall outside of their particular faith rules.

If you provide public services, and receive public monies for doing so, you can't pick and choose what you want to provide and/or pay for.

Yes i understand your point completely i just dont agree with it. They are not denying service to people outside the church, they are not saying they wont do almost all of the things other Hospitals do. They are just saying they wont do things that they believe are wrong to do.

But in this particular issue, it's not even about what they will or won't do in their own hospitals (that's a separate issue), it's a matter of what they'll allow to be covered by insurance policies that they offer as employers. I can't get past the idea that they're exacting their rules on people to whom they don't apply. That I'd have to pay out of pocket for birth control pills or an abortion because my employer excludes coverage for them (based solely on what they believe their god opposes) is fucking ridiculous.

But in this particular issue, it's not even about what they will or won't do in their own hospitals (that's a separate issue), it's a matter of what they'll allow to be covered by insurance policies that they offer as employers. I can't get past the idea that they're exacting their rules on people to whom they don't apply. That I'd have to pay out of pocket for birth control pills or an abortion because my employer excludes coverage for them (based solely on what they believe their god opposes) is fucking ridiculous.

Maybe i just dont know the laws of the US that well, but isnt like that in any other job you take? your employee decides how much they want to cover of the insurance they are offering to you? i mean i know people that have dental insurance on their jobs and other that dont, isnt it the same?

To use that analogy, it's the equivalent of a church deciding that their "god" opposes root canals and routine tooth-cleanings, so even though most of the people that they employ don't belong to their church, they just decide that any employee who wants or needs either of those can go pay full price on their own for them, with money they may not have. Do they pay for everything else? Yes, but that's not the point, especially since they happen to receive tons of money from the government, and purport to act as a normal employer of people from all faiths (or lack thereof).

EDIT: The difference is that their objection is wholly faith based (their "god" doesn't believe it's right to do so), as opposed to an a la carte "we'll offer this level of coverage for (x) dollars", which is perfectly legal.

To use that analogy, it's the equivalent of a church deciding that their "god" opposes root canals and routine tooth-cleanings, so even though most of the people that they employ don't belong to their church, they just decide that any employee who wants or needs either of those can go pay full price on their own for them, with money they may not have. Do they pay for everything else? Yes, but that's not the point, especially since they happen to receive tons of money from the government, and purport to act as a normal employer of people from all faiths (or lack thereof).

EDIT: The difference is that their objection is wholly faith based (their "god" doesn't believe it's right to do so), as opposed to an a la carte "we'll offer this level of coverage for (x) dollars", which is perfectly legal.

I just use the dental example to make a point, that if other employees can choose what to cover, othe employees no matter who they are should be aible to choose what to cover also, no matter on why they choose too.

Because what is worst having your employees having to pay from their own pockets for somethings because i dont want to pay the extra money on covering them or having your employees to pay for somethings because i believe is wrong? if you ask me both positions are wrong BUT if you allow one to do it you should allow the other one to do it also, whether you agree with their decisions or not.

And in my opinion they ARE a normal employer, they are choosing what to cover and what not to cover as any other employer do.

They are a normal employer, other than the fact that they're heavily subsidized through tax breaks and government funds. This issue is coming up because of the new federal health care provisions. The catholic church is insisting that they should be exempt from the same health care that everyone else has to provide the mandated coverage for. Obviously you're fine with that, but the government (as well as most catholics) disagree, and see this as religion's undue influence and perversion of care. See the chart below:

This church wants it both ways: to be treated as a normal employer, and to get money as a religion. Here's hoping that the government doesn't back down to their pressure.

"Weltbild," Germany’s largest media company, sells books, DVDs, music and more -- and also happens to belong 100% to the Catholic Church. Few people knew about this connection until this month when Buchreport, a German industry newsletter, reported that the Catholic company also sells porn.

A Church spokesman responded: “Weltbild tries to prevent the distribution of possibly pornographic content.”

I understand that this particular corporation is in Europe, but the church also owns companies in America. Link to the Catholic Chamber of Commerce. How would you react if you were an employee of this publishing company, and suddenly you found out that your employer was going to pick and choose what facets of health care you're entitled to? If you worked for a privately-owned company, you might just decide to find work with a more understanding employer. But if your company was funded by the government, don't you think that the taxpayers (and you, yourself) should have a say in how the tax money is spent?

My own personal opinion is that the government has no place in this. A Catholic institution is like any other non-profit/tax exempt organization. If they fit the requirements for funding, they cannot be denied on the grounds of religion. I'm not Catholic, my S.O. is. My kids go to a catholic school. And while I do not agree with a lot of Catholic teachings, I believe they have the right to believe whatever they choose. And yes, we do use contraception. The school doesn't get any funding, that I'm aware of, from the local, state, or federal government. I'm not a CPA so I'm not sure of what being tax exempt fully entails. My understanding is they do not have to pay taxes on any profits they make. And they are exempt from paying state sales taxes. Not that they get reimbursed for any and all expenditures. And like any business there are exemptions for all sorts of things used in said business. That's no different for profit or non-profit.

I hate to admit this, but I do kinda think if you choose to work for a Catholic organization then you are choosing to work for a place that will not provide birth control. Any individual can opt out of the company health plan and purchase their own. More expensive? Yes, but that's a choice. Viagra and birth control are not the same in any way. True, not all employees of are Catholic. So what. If I go to work at a vegetarian restaraunt, I cannot complain that they do not serve any meat at the company picnic.

If we want to have religious organizations only take government funds if the choose to ignore their own doctrines and beliefs... fine. Then let's change the laws and the Constitution to reflect that. But until then, in my opinion, this violates Freedom of Religion. And if government is allowed to force itself into religion and make changes to religion, does it open up government to desires of religion? Can't have it both ways, right?

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

My own personal opinion is that the government has no place in this. A Catholic institution is like any other non-profit/tax exempt organization. If they fit the requirements for funding, they cannot be denied on the grounds of religion. I'm not Catholic, my S.O. is. My kids go to a catholic school. And while I do not agree with a lot of Catholic teachings, I believe they have the right to believe whatever they choose. And yes, we do use contraception. The school doesn't get any funding, that I'm aware of, from the local, state, or federal government. I'm not a CPA so I'm not sure of what being tax exempt fully entails. My understanding is they do not have to pay taxes on any profits they make. And they are exempt from paying state sales taxes. Not that they get reimbursed for any and all expenditures. And like any business there are exemptions for all sorts of things used in said business. That's no different for profit or non-profit.

I hate to admit this, but I do kinda think if you choose to work for a Catholic organization then you are choosing to work for a place that will not provide birth control. Any individual can opt out of the company health plan and purchase their own. More expensive? Yes, but that's a choice. Viagra and birth control are not the same in any way. True, not all employees of are Catholic. So what. If I go to work at a vegetarian restaraunt, I cannot complain that they do not serve any meat at the company picnic.

If we want to have religious organizations only take government funds if the choose to ignore their own doctrines and beliefs... fine. Then let's change the laws and the Constitution to reflect that. But until then, in my opinion, this violates Freedom of Religion. And if government is allowed to force itself into religion and make changes to religion, does it open up government to desires of religion? Can't have it both ways, right?

Is it all right for you if the church uses tax money to build new parking lots, upgrade their roads, and refurbish their facilities? Courts have decided that churches can use tax money for any purpose that provides "a direct benefit" to society, as long as it's not used to directly pay for the practice of that church's religion. The Catholic Church does take tax money to pay operating expenses for hospitals and clinics. The only caveat is that they can't use that money to directly proselytize the Catholic faith. So sayeth the courts. If I'm on staff at one of those hospitals, aren't I actually being paid by tax money? And again, as a taxpayer myself, shouldn't I have a say in what my money goes to pay for?

I'm all for churches being able to regulate what they're willing to pay for and not, if they're spending their own money. If it's my money, I want to be able to voice my opinion.

If the Catholic Church did not accept federal tax money then the church would have every right to refuse the government dictates. However, they do accept large government funding. That places them in the same position as the Florida welfare recipients that were required to do drug testing and the food stamp recipients that were complaining that they could not buy junk food & beer with their food stamps and should be able to do so.

If the government is giving you the money to operate on or live on then you are subject to their dictates whether you like it or not.

Consider this though, you might as well get used to it because the federal government is a growing beast that intends to make us completely subservient to their dictates.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. — Thomas Jefferson

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. — Thomas Jefferson

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. — Thomas Jefferson

Most bad government has grown out of too much government. — Thomas Jefferson

Is it all right for you if the church uses tax money to build new parking lots, upgrade their roads, and refurbish their facilities? Courts have decided that churches can use tax money for any purpose that provides "a direct benefit" to society, as long as it's not used to directly pay for the practice of that church's religion. The Catholic Church does take tax money to pay operating expenses for hospitals and clinics. The only caveat is that they can't use that money to directly proselytize the Catholic faith. So sayeth the courts. If I'm on staff at one of those hospitals, aren't I actually being paid by tax money? And again, as a taxpayer myself, shouldn't I have a say in what my money goes to pay for?

I'm all for churches being able to regulate what they're willing to pay for and not, if they're spending their own money. If it's my money, I want to be able to voice my opinion.

Yes, it is all right for them to build new parking lots. If courts have decided, then so be it. What tax money are you talking about?

I doubt tax money is being used to pay payroll. If so, any business that doesn't have payroll built into it's revenue or can't meet payroll without extra loans or tax help is about to go under anyway. However, if you worked at a public hospital that was totally funded by tax dollars would you think you could dictate your terms of employment. If you only got 2 weeks vacation but think you deserved 3? You're a taxpayer, do you think you'd have any input? Probably not.

edit... if abiding by ANY form of government intrusion into the operating of a company is cost of receiving any funding, we'll be in serious trouble. any business, religious oriented or not, that takes federal tax funds would become a de facto federally run business. You want our funding, fine. We want you to pay your employees THIS wage, offer THESE benefits, operate durng THESE hours. The arguement isn't.. is it or isn't it right. The arguement/debate should be is it constitutional? We'll never agree on the merits of whether or not Catholic institutions should offer these benefits. Maybe they should. But taking funds from the government doesn't negate the constitutional protection of religious freedom.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

It does not say, make no law.... prohibiting free exercise of religion.. unless Congress or government gives them money. In which case, katy bar the door. All bets are off. In this case, government SHALL prohibiit excercise of religion. Money is money and that changes shit, yo. Sincerely, The Framers.

As soon as we start tinkering with the First Amendment, then our entire Republic is doomed. Nothing else will be sacred.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

edit... if abiding by ANY form of government intrusion into the operating of a company is cost of receiving any funding, we'll be in serious trouble. any business, religious oriented or not, that takes federal tax funds would become a de facto federally run business. You want our funding, fine. We want you to pay your employees THIS wage, offer THESE benefits, operate durng THESE hours. The arguement isn't.. is it or isn't it right. The arguement/debate should be is it constitutional? We'll never agree on the merits of whether or not Catholic institutions should offer these benefits. Maybe they should. But taking funds from the government doesn't negate the constitutional protection of religious freedom.

Google "Davis-Bacon Act of 1931". On any government-funded project, the government establishes a "prevailing wage" and any contractor bidding on that project must, by law, pay the government-mandated wages or above. It doesn't matter if the wages published are head and shoulders above the market rate for labor. Whatever the .gov says wages are must be paid.

lafayettemister wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

It does not say, make no law.... prohibiting free exercise of religion.. unless Congress or government gives them money. In which case, katy bar the door. All bets are off. In this case, government SHALL prohibiit excercise of religion. Money is money and that changes shit, yo. Sincerely, The Framers.

As soon as we start tinkering with the First Amendment, then our entire Republic is doomed. Nothing else will be sacred.

Look up any Congressional scholar to find out the meaning of the First Amendment. What the Framers wrote was that Congress can not make any laws that give one religion more respect than any other. The State cannot establish an official religion. Nor can the State pass any laws forbidding the practice of any religion. This amendment was written as a direct refutation of the fact that England does have a State religion (The Church of England) and one of King George's demands was that we establish the same official State Church here. Since the first settlers came here expressly to escape religious persecution, the Framers goal was to make the establishment of a state religion impossible.

What we're talking about doesn't bar Catholics (or anyone else, for that matter) from practicing their religion, and in no way does it threaten the First Amendment. All it does is ensure that if a religious entity takes government money, then the benefits it gives it's employees must abide by equality laws.

Yes, it is all right for them to build new parking lots. If courts have decided, then so be it. What tax money are you talking about?

There have been instances where churches have applied for government funds (community-redevelopment money, and such) to repave parking lots, and remodel buildings. Church-and-State separatists have sued to prevent government money being used to enrich churches. Those lawsuits have been decided in favor of the churches. You can look actual cases if you like, or you can go up to the links I provided up the page a whit.

It is a matter of freedom, and unfortunately it's tied to religion. The freedom at stake is the freedom of non-catholic women to have access to any and all normally (i.e. not forbidden per some religious teaching) available health care, even if their employer opposes it. It's bullshit to expect women to uproot themselves and go elsewhere just to get correct and complete health care coverage, just as it's bullshit for all of the "stay outta my life, gubmint!" people to somehow support the infiltration of religion into health care standards.

It's a rights issue. We don't expect blacks or Latinos who are discriminated against by one type of employer to simply change employers if they're not happy, and women's healthcare should not be left to that same discriminatory standard.

It is a matter of freedom, and unfortunately it's tied to religion. The freedom at stake is the freedom of non-catholic women to have access to any and all normally (i.e. not forbidden per some religious teaching) available health care, even if their employer opposes it. It's bullshit to expect women to uproot themselves and go elsewhere just to get correct and complete health care coverage, just as it's bullshit for all of the "stay outta my life, gubmint!" people to somehow support the infiltration of religion into health care standards.

It's a rights issue. We don't expect blacks or Latinos who are discriminated against by one type of employer to simply change employers if they're not happy, and women's healthcare should not be left to that same discriminatory standard.

Well said. Anytime I start to think I'm smart, you come along and prove how much smarter you are...

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.